IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT NAGPUR

IN THE MATTER OF section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 arising out of the Judgment
passed by the Additional Sessions judge, Warora in
Criminal Appeal No. 12/2015 dated 18.06.2015 whereby
the Judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Khamgaon in Sum. Criminal Case No. 831/2011
dated 21/04/2015 convicting the applicant for the
offences punishable u/s 354,341, r/w 34 of the I.P.C.
stood confirmed.

Criminal Revision Application No.____________/2012.

APPLICANT: Samir S/o Gani Sheikh Mus,

Aged about 41 years,
Occ:Catering,
R/o Colony Ward, Tq. Warora,
District: Chandrapur.

//V E R S U S//

NON-APPLICANT: The State of Maharashtra,

Through Police Station Chimur,
Tah. Chimur , District:
Chandrapur.

CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH

SECTION 401 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE.

Being aggrieved by the Judgment passed by

the Additional Sessions judge, Warora in Criminal Appeal

No. 12/2015 dated 18.06.2015 whereby the Judgment

passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Warora in

Sum. Criminal Case No. 831/2011 dated 18/07/2022

convicting the applicant for the off7enses punishable u/s

354,341,34 of the I.P.C. stood confirmed, whereby the

applicant was sentenced to suffer R.I. for three month &

to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- i/d S.I. for 7 days, R.I. for one

month & to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- i/d S.I. for 3 days,

R.I. 6 months & to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- i/d S.I. for 6

days, R.I. for one year & to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- i/d to

suffer S.I. for 6 days respectively, the copies of which

are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-I & II respectively,

the applicant named above most humbly & respectfully

submits the instant revision before this Hon’ble Court on

the following grounds.

GROUNDS

1) The Judgment and order passed by the

learned lower court is against natural justice and against

the law.

2) The learned lower court erred in appreciating

the evidence came on record of prosecution witnesses

no. 1 to 4 for proving a case of the prosecution.

3) The learned lower court erred in coming to

the conclusion of guilt of all accused/ appellants on the

basis of prosecut witnessness no.1 to 4 only

4) The learned lower court failed to appreciate

the best evidence came on record of disproving the guilt

of the accused/appellant

5) The applicant further submits that

appreciation of the evidence by both the courts are

absolutely perverse and erroneous therefore the order

and judgment are also against the law.

6) The applicant further submits that the

appellate Sessions Court has not considered the most

important aspect enshrined u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. which is

not duly and properly complied by the lower court more

particularly if the Hon’ble Court look into the statement

recorded by the lower court, will find that many complex

and complicated questions were put to the applicant of

which applicant was unable to give proper explanation

and such has resulted into injustice to the applicant and

hence on this legal ground itself order of both the courts

deserves to be set aside.

7) The question no.3, 6, 8, 11 and 13 if prima

facie looked, appears to be complicated, complex and

vague in nature and therefore the applicant was

prejudiced as he failed to understand the question and

given proper answer to it.

8) Compliance U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. is not mere

formality but it is to be applied by the courts very

unscrupulously and hence the judgment of the lower

courts deserves to be set aside on this ground alone.

9) Though the applicant has invoked the

revisional jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court but

requesting in the interest of justice that he may be

allowed to state that appreciation of the evidence being

absolutely perverse and erroneous, judgment deserves

to be set aside by allowing this revision petition.

Therefore the applicant seeks to prefer this

instant revision on the following substantial questions of

law:

A) Whether the Judgments passed by both the

Courts below are perverse in as much as it ignores the

evidence on record which renders the findings arrived at

illegal?
B) Whether both the Lower Courts erred in

coming to the conclusion of the guilt of the applicant in

absence prosecution having succeeded in proving the

same beyond the reasonable doubt?

C) Whether both the Courts below erred in

ignoring the important aspect of the contributory

negligence?

D) Whether both the learned Courts below failed

to consider the effect of the admissions of prosecution

witnesses to the effect of admitted rash & negligent

driving of the Taxi Driver?

11) Applicant has not challenged the order

passed by Lower Appellate Court any time before this

Hon’ble Court or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India any time before.

Hence this revision.

PRAYER: It is therefore most humbly prayed that this

Hon’ble Court be pleased to call the record

and proceeding from the Court the Additional

Sessions judge, Khamgaon in Criminal Appeal

No. 9/2006 & from the Court of Judicial

Magistrate, First Class, Khamgaon in Sum.

 Criminal Case No. 529/2003 and after perusal

of the same be pleased to

(A) quash and set aside the Judgment

passed by the Additional Sessions judge,

Khamgaon in Criminal Appeal No. 9/2006

dated 22.10.2012 (Ann. I) whereby the

Judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate,

First Class, Khamgaon in Sum. Criminal Case

No. 529/2003 dated 12/04/2006 convicting

the applicant for the offences punishable u/s

279, 337, 338 & 304-A of the I.P.C. (Ann. II)

and the applicant be set at liberty, in the

interest of justice.

(B) Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble

Court deems fit & proper in the facts &

circumstances of the present case.

NAGPUR
DATE 30/10/2012 COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT

NOTE: As the applicant is in jail, filing of affidavit in

support of this application may kindly be dispensed with.

COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR

Criminal Application No. ____________/2012

IN
Criminal Revision Application No.____________/2012.

APPLICANT: Harish S/o Narayan Burkule,

Aged about 50 years, Occ:Driver,
R/o Malkapur, Tq. Malkapur,
District: Buldana.

//V E R S U S//

NON-APPLICANT: The State of Maharashtra,

Through Police Station Officer,
 Shivaji Nagar Police Station,
Khamgaon, District: Buldana.

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 389 OF THE CODE OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.

Applicant named above most humbly &

respectfully submits as under:

1. That the applicant has filed the instant

revision application challenging the Judgment passed by

the Additional Sessions judge, Khamgaon in Criminal

Appeal No. 9/2006 dated 22.10.2012 whereby the

Judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,

Khamgaon in Sum. Criminal Case No. 529/2003 dated

12/04/2006 convicting the applicant for the offences

punishable u/s 279, 337, 338 & 304-A of the I.P.C.

stood confirmed, whereby the applicant was sentenced

to suffer R.I. for one month & to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-

i/d S.I. for 3 days, R.I. for one month & to pay a fine of

Rs. 100/- i/d S.I. for 3 days, R.I. 6 months & to pay a

fine of Rs. 200/- i/d S.I. for 6 days, R.I. for one year &

to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- i/d to suffer S.I. for 6 days

respectively.

2. Applicant submits that he ahs a very good

case on merits & is most likely to succeed if heard on

merits. The applicant craves leave of this Hon’ble Court

to refer to & rely upon the memo of revision filed

alongwith the revision.

3. Applicant further submits that a serious

prejudice would be caused to him if the sentence is not

suspended as the entire purpose of filing the revision

would be frustrated.

4. Applicant further submits that he was

throughout on bail during the trial as well as appeal.

Applicant has not misused the liberty so granted to him.

The applicant is ready & willing to furnish solvent surety

to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court & further ready

& willing to abide by any conditions which this Hon’ble

Court imposes upon him.

5. Applicant has not filed any other application

for suspension of sentence any time before either this

Hon’ble Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Hence this application.

PRAYER: It is therefore most humbly & respectfully

prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be

pleased to allow this application & suspend

the substantive sentence imposed upon the

 applicant & release the applicant on bail on

him furnishing the solvent surety to the

satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court in the

interest of Justice.

NAGPUR
DATE 30/10/2012 COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT

NOTE: As the applicant is in jail, filing of affidavit in

support of this application may kindly be dispensed with.

COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT